Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868

www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Durability issues of FRP rebars in reinforced concrete members

a,*
Francesca Ceroni , Edoardo Cosenza b, Manfredi Gaetano b, Marisa Pecce a

a
Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, P.zza Roma 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy
b
Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, via Claudio 21, 80125, Italy

Available online 30 August 2006

Abstract

The use of fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) as rebars in reinforced concrete (RC) elements is a viable means to prevent corrosion
effects that reduce the service life of members employing steel reinforcement. However, durability of FRP rebars is not straightforward
as it is related to material properties as well as bar–concrete interaction. A state of the art of durability of FRP rebars is presented herein
in order to highlight issues related to the material properties and interaction mechanisms which influence the service life of RC elements.
The design approach implemented in international codes is discussed and the reduction factors taking into account the durability
performances are summarized.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Durability; FRP bars; Environment effect; Long-term behaviour; Thermal effects

1. Introduction The durability of FRP materials has not been yet

The increasing use of fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs)
as rebars in reinforced concrete (RC) structures has been
supported by the ‘‘durability’’ of this novel material. How-
ever, the high durability of FRPs has been defined only
with regard to that of steel rebars. The latter are detrimen-
tally affected by corrosion phenomena governing the
effective life of structures and their maintenance costs.
Unfortunately durability of FRP rebars is a not straight-
forward subject; it tends to be more complex than corro-
sion of steel reinforcement, because degradation of the
material could depend both on resin and fibres and on their
interface bond behaviour. Furthermore, the types of rebars
available on the market are various and the commercial
products are continuously changed. Different fibres are
characterized by different behaviour under high tempera-
ture, environmental effects and long-term phenomena. In
addition concrete could be an unfavourable environment
due to alkali and moisture absorption.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 824 30 55 75; fax: +39 824 32 52 46.
E-mail address: ceroni@unisannio.it (F. Ceroni).
assessed thoroughly and hence reliable design rules for
RC structures are still lacking. Nevertheless, it has been
observed [69,60,33,7,37] that the durability of concrete
members reinforced with FRP rebars depends on the effect
of concrete environment for the composite material and
cracking and concrete–bar bond. The latter is of para-
mount importance and depends on the rebar surface
adopted by the manufacturer to improve bond (e.g.
sanded, ribbed, etc.). It has also been noted [42] that crack
openings are generally higher than in RC members with
steel rebars, being the Young’s modulus of FRPs lower
than in mild steel, thus reducing the protection due to
concrete.
Recently, many studies have been carried out on dura-
bility of FRP bars [6,25,26,32,36,38,53,69]; however, there
are still many aspects to be investigated to provide reliable
design rules to be implemented in codes of practice.
The durability may be defined as the capacity of a
material or a structure corresponding to the initial perfor-
mance and is kept constant during time. In structural engi-
neering durability is thus the property related the effective
life of the construction. Materials and structures can be
characterized in several manners. Variations of mechanical

0958-9465/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.07.004
858 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
properties as Young’s modulus, tensile strength, interlam-
inar shear and bond strength are the most suitable indica-
tors of FRP deterioration. Considering the interaction
with concrete, durability is also the ability to prevent
cracking, chemical degradation, delamination, wearing,
and similar effects of ageing with time, under the condi-
tions of sustained loads and/or design environmental
conditions.
In this paper a state of the art of durability of FRP
rebars is dealt with. The adopted framework can be
divided in three parts: effects of external and concrete envi-
ronment, long-term effects, influence of concrete–FRP
mechanisms.
Experimental results relative to the effects of tempera-
ture, chemical agents and moisture are presented to
compare different types of fibres and resins. Long-term
phenomena are also discussed and the role of fibres type
and the consequences on RC elements are presented.
Finally, direct influence of interaction mechanisms between
concrete and rebar, especially due to bond, are outlined.
References to specific provisions available in the techni-
cal literature and/or codes are introduced, as appropriate,
for each of the features influencing the durability.
2. Durability of FRP material
Experimental tests to investigate durability have long
durations and require accelerated methods to activate the
environmental effects. Thus the accuracy of the results in
terms of real time performances has to be determined.
There is no full agreement about the test procedures; the
topic is further complicated by the variability in FRP
products and their use in concrete members.
It is essential in structural applications to identify stan-
dard test procedures that could be confidently recom-
mended for materials.
FRP bars include two different phases, a resin matrix
and unidirectional fibres. As a result, the properties of both
components and resin/fibres interface have to be investi-
gated with special emphasis on the influence of environ-
mental and mechanical parameters. All the above
components play a role in defining the characteristics of
the composite material and can be susceptible to attack
by various aggressive environments, so that the adequate
performance of all three elements has to be fully warranted
throughout the design life of the structure.
Matrix protects fibres and transfers uniformly stresses
between them, therefore the type of resin and the quality
of its realization are fundamental. The effectiveness of the
resin depends on its continuity of surface and absence of
defects. For example, cuts at the ends of composite expose
directly fibres to external environment giving undesirable
effects in a durability viewpoint. In such regions environ-
mental effects can produce damage of the fibre/matrix
bond, because of the exposure of the fibres along their
length, matrix and the resin/fibre interface of internal parts
to direct attacks from the environment.
The characteristics of resins that could reduce durability
of FRP materials, independently from resin and fibres type
are:
• Resin wet out (how well the fibres are covered by resin);
• Absence of cracks (either surface or through thickness);
• Absence of voids (generally smaller and well distributed
is preferable);
• Degree of cure of resin (if the production process was
not well controlled the resin may be insufficiently
cross-linked to provide the designed protection).
Other qualities of resins are significant for durability,
but can be controlled by selecting the type of resin:
• Resistance to alkali and chloride attack;
• Toughness to resist microcracking;
• Impermeability to environment penetration to the
interior;
• Easy manufacturing to minimise quality variations;
• High compatibility with fibres to ensure a strong fibre/
matrix bond.
Fibres provide stiffness and strength to composite mate-
rial, i.e. the performance of structural systems depends on
their main mechanical properties and durability behaviour.
The durability of glass, aramid and carbon fibres, that are
the most common types used in civil engineering applica-
tions, are different and have to be underlined for all the
effects assessed hereafter. In general glass fibres, that are
largely used also because are the cheapest ones, are less
durable when used as rebars in concrete, due to high chem-
ical sensibility to alkali environment. However, these
observations should lead to a review of the existing design
process to consider that improving of performances can
arise by optimizing the manufacturing techniques and
coupling with various resins.
Durability of a composite material is related not only to
the properties of its constitutive materials (fibres and
matrix), but also to the integrity of the interface between
these two components. Bond of FRP reinforcement relies
upon the transfer of shear and transverse forces at the
interface between bar and concrete, and between individual
fibres within the bar. These resin-dominated mechanisms
are in contrast to the fibre-dominated mechanisms that
control properties such as longitudinal strength and stiff-
ness of FRP bars. Environments that degrade the polymer
resin or fibre/resin interface are thus also likely to degrade
the bond strength of an FRP bar.
Usually a strong fibre/matrix interface is needed and
inadequate selection of fibre or matrix types or incorrect
processing can lead to a weak interface to environmental
attacks. A deterioration of this interface reduces the capac-
ity of load transfer between fibres with a consequent weak-
ness of the composite material [26]. The use of a coupling
agent on the fibre surface improves the strength of the
interface, and protects the fibres against environmental
attack or reaction with moisture or alkalis. However, the
chemical bond between the coupling agent and the surface
 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868 859

of glass fibres is not stable in the presence of moisture and soften, melt or catch fire above 150–200 C. Fibres them-
alkalis that gradually destroys this bond, causing damage selves are more or less able to resist to higher temperatures:
to the interface. aramid to 200 C, glass to 300–500 C while carbon in non-
Combined with chemical attacks, a high level of sus- oxidizing environment up to 800–1000 C (Fib technical
tained mechanical loading increases the degradation of report [17]). Due to the temperature independence of car-
the fibres/matrix interface. bon fibres themselves, CFRP shows the most favourable
behaviour.
2.1. Environmental influences In Fig. 1 [64] experimental variation of Young’s modu-
lus and tensile strength at increasing temperature is shown
FRP bars are susceptible to changes of strength and for various types of aramid and carbon rebars. In the first
stiffness in the presence of environments prior to, during, graph the reduction of Young modulus as a function of the
and after construction. room temperature is depicted for three types of aramid and
The external environment is characterized by many carbon rebars; the higher reduction for aramid is shown.
chemical and physical actions, but only some of them could The same results are found also in the second graph where
give important effects on FRP materials modifying their the value of the tensile modulus is plotted. Finally in the
mechanical performances, thus reducing durability of third graph the strength reduction is shown for one aramid
structure. The most important are generally those dis-
cussed in the following, although their influence depends
on the type of composite material (type of resin and fibres).
One of the most important effects of external environ-
ment is the variation of thermal conditions. In a polymeric
composite the matrix properties are more affected by the
increase in the temperature than the fibre properties. The
glass transition temperature (Tg) of the matrix is a key
parameter, since it defines a topic point generally corre-
sponding to significant changes with considerable reduc-
tion of the mechanical properties.
The elastic modulus and strength of an FRP bar
decrease with the increase in temperature under high tem-
perature and sustained load. In the short-term, an increase
in temperature between 30 and 40 C, that is a significant
condition in the life of a structure, does not significantly
affect the strength or the elastic modulus of the most of
commercial fibres. However, long thermal ageing at a high
temperature combined with sustained loading may cause
deterioration in the properties of the matrix.
Under service temperature of concrete structures (from
20 to +60 C) the reduction in Young’s modulus is negli-
gible for CFRP, however slight reduction occurs for AFRP
and GFRP (Fib technical report [17]).
A reduction of ultimate load capacity in presence of
high temperature is caused by modification of matrix prop-
erties and in consequence of interface fibre–matrix, limiting
the effectiveness of fibres strength.
In many civil engineering applications, RC members are
subjected to high number of freezing/thawing cycles, that
are mostly combined with water and chloride ions penetra-
tion into the concrete, producing degradation of fibres,
resin and interfacial bond. Microcraking of resin is partic-
ularly influent because reduces the protection of fibres and
bond at the resin interface; thus the type of resin is a key
parameter for durability of FRP as further discussed in
the next section.
As far as very high temperature is concerned, i.e. fire
resistance, polymeric materials are usually flammable or Fig. 1. Effect of temperature [65]: (a) perceptual variation of Young’s
harming in the case of fire, therefore, basically resin deter- modulus; (b) variation of Young’s modulus; (c) variation of tensile
mines the temperature/fire resistance of FRPs. Resins strength.
860 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
and two carbon rebars, confirming the superior perfor-
mance of carbon.
Ultraviolet rays affect polymeric materials that can be
considerably degraded [41,7]. Exposure tests have shown
[67,23] for AFRP rods around 13% reduction in tensile
strength after 2500 h exposure, 8% reduction for GFRP
rods after 500 h (no reduction thereafter) and no reduction
for CFRP rods. Some results from combined ultraviolet
and moisture exposure tests with and without stress applied
to the bars have shown tensile strength reductions of
0–20% of initial values in CFRP, 0–30% in AFRP and
0–40% in GFRP [52,71].
Exposition usually does not occur for rebars inside con-
crete, but attention needs in storage.
For chemical attack, the most important problem could
be the effect of acid attack. However, there is a lack of data.
Acid attack is more dangerous for concrete, therefore this
is more interesting for RC elements when acid resistant
cement, such as high-alumina cement, is used with FRP
reinforcement.
The degradation process due to chemical actions occurs
for combining effects of microcracking in the matrix, due to
stress conditions, that favourite penetration of corrosive
agents to the core of the bar. There is a stress limit below
which microcracking in the matrix cannot occur, and cap-
illary action, related to porosity or imperfections, domi-
nates durability.
2.2. Effects of concrete environment
The most significant problems of steel corrosion in RC
elements are related to carbonation that occurs everywhere
depending on concrete W/C ratio, cement type, curing,
CO2 concentration and cracking.
Aqueous solutions with high values of pH are known to
erode the tensile strength and stiffness of GFRP bars [44],
although results vary tremendously according to differences
in test methods. Higher temperatures and longer exposure
times exasperate the problem.
Fig. 2. Degradation of resin caused by alkali (G1: GFRP rebars with thermoplastic resin, G2: GFRP rebars with polyester resin [36]).
FRPs are generally not affected significantly by the pro-
cess of carbonation that reduces concrete alkalinity due to
the high calcium hydroxide content of hardened cement
stone (pH 12.5–14), therefore the usual benefit of concrete
in protecting reinforcement could cause a reinforcement
degradation when FRP rebars are used.
On the other hand, alkalinity may affect glass fibres
unless suitable polymer resins [60] protect them. The inter-
face between glass fibres and the resin controls the resis-
tance of the GFRP bars to the alkalis [69].
Experimental data [36] showed that resin properties may
strongly influence the durability of FRP reinforcement:
particularly GFRP rods are sensitive to alkaline attack
when polyester resin is used because does not provide
adequate protection to fibres (Fig. 2).
Carbon fibres tend to show the best resistance, followed
by aramid and then glass fibres [33].
Carbon fibres cannot absorb liquids and are resistant to
acid, alkali [36] and organic solvents, therefore, do not
show considerable deterioration in any kind of harsh envi-
ronments, while deterioration of glass fibres in alkaline
environment is well known and the role of resin could be
more [60] or less negligible [57,66,71]; in particular vinyl-
ester resin offers a greater alkali resistance than polyester
resins.
The type of glass fibres, resin and manufacturing process
could may lower the tensile capacity in the range of
25–100% [47]. According to the type of glass fibre tensile
strength reductions in GFRP bars ranging from 0% to
75% of initial values have been registered [16]. Tensile stiff-
ness reductions in GFRP bars range between 0% and 20%
in many cases. Reduction of strength due to alkali can be
influenced by high temperature and stress level [38]. In
the case of CFRP, the decrease in strength and stiffness
may vary between 0% and 20% [63].
Tensile strength and stiffness of AFRP rods in elevated
temperature alkaline solutions either with or without
tensile stress have been reported to decrease between
10–50% and 0–20% of initial values, respectively [63,47,56].
 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
Some experimental studies [37] were performed to inves-
tigate the performance of GFRP materials exposed to a
concrete environment in built structures. Any degradation
was found for GFRP reinforcement (rods and grids) in
concrete environment in real-life engineering structures
exposed to natural environmental conditions for durations
of 5–8 years. The EDX analyses indicated no alkali ingress
in the GFRP reinforcement from the concrete pore solu-
tion. The results was that, under tension, GFRP reinforce-
ment is durable and highly compatible with the concrete
material and results are used for the new addendum of
CHBDC [13].
Another environmental problem in RC concrete ele-
ments could be presence of chloride in sea construction
or de-icing salts that usually accelerate corrosion.
Results vary widely because it is difficult to distinguish
the effects of chloride attack and degradation due to mois-
ture diffusion and/or alkali attack of the fibres. CFRP and
AFRP reinforcements are insensitive to chloride ions.
Experimental studies demonstrated that GFRP reinforce-
ments can be seriously damaged in marine environment
or in presence of de-icing salts [48].
During casting of concrete, FRP rebars can absorb
water causing a chemical reaction. The moisture absorbed
by the composites, combined with the temperature of expo-
sure, induces stresses in the material with consequent dam-
age of fibres, matrix, and their interface and decreasing of
the strength of FRP material with time.
Moisture can be absorbed by capillary uptake along any
pre-existing crack or interface between the fibre and resin
matrix. The effect of moisture on composites is a mass
uptake, followed by the plasticization of the matrix and a
decrease in the glass transition temperature. Moisture can
act as a plasticizer disrupting Van-der-Waals bonds in
polymer chains [7] and producing fibre–matrix de-bonding
[21]. The phenomenon is emphasized for polyester resins
and high temperature (>60 C) (Fig. 3).
Carbon and glass fibres cannot absorb water [74]. Con-
versely, water absorption in aramid fibres causes reversible
decrease in tensile strength, Young’s modulus or relaxation
and irreversible decrease in fatigue strength [43]. Decrease
in characteristics of AFRP due to water absorption is
Fig. 3. Absorption capacity (G1: GFRP rebars with thermoplastic resin,
G2: GFRP rebars with polyester resin [36]).
861
about 15–25% [20]. According to swelling of AFRP rein-
forcement, bond cracking can be induced by wet/dry cycles
(e.g. in splash zones of marine structures) that cause dete-
rioration and points out that aramid fibres are inapplicable
in marine environment [58,59] although the low sensitivity
to chloride.
A synthetic scheme of the meaningful issues of FRP
rebars durability in concrete is represented in Table 1.
2.3. Mechanical properties time depending
The most important time depending properties are:
creep, relaxation and fatigue.
Creep phenomena in FRP rebars include: the creep
strain under sustained load and the long-term tensile
strength under sustained load (often called stress rupture,
residual strength or creep rupture strength) that can be sud-
denly attained after a period of time called ‘‘endurance
limit’’. Creep failure strength can be defined as the tensile
stress causing failure after a specified period of time after
starting of a sustained load.
This type of failure depends on the fibre and resin types:
considering that carbon and glass fibres have excellent
resistance to creep, while most of polymeric resins can be
very susceptible, the creep performance of FRP bars
strictly depends on orientation and volume fractions of
fibres.
The endurance limit decreases as the ratio of the sus-
tained tensile stress to the short-term strength increases.
High temperature, exposure to UV radiation, high alkalin-
ity, wet and dry cycles and freeze-thaw cycles may reduce
the creep rupture strength and the endurance time.
It was experimentally observed that creep rupture [11]
does not occur if sustained stress is lower than 60% of
the short term strength. Therefore this phenomenon is rel-
evant for prestressed element, while in the RC elements the
low level of stress in FRP rebars at serviceability loads does
not cause the possibility of creep rupture.
Experimental results [27] on GFRP, AFRP and CFRP
bars, evidenced a linear relationship between creep rupture
strength and the logarithm of time, for period up to 100 h.
By extrapolating the results to 500,000 h (57 years) the
ratios of creep strength rupture to the short-term strength
of bars were linearly extrapolated to be 0.29, 0.47 and
0.93 for GFRP, AFRP and CFRP, respectively. Test on
commercial twisted CFRP bars and AFRP bars with an
epoxy matrix at room temperature to determine the endur-
ance time[5] showed that the estimated retained percentage
of short-term strength after 50 years was 79% for CFRP
and 66% for AFRP. Tests on GFRP bars with vinylester
matrix at room temperature [55] evidenced a creep strength
rupture equal to 55% of the short-term strength for an
extrapolated endurance time of 50 year.
Tests focusing on the durability of E-glass/vinylester
FRP bars in alkaline and de-ionized water under sustained
tensile stress (or no stress) at ambient and elevated temper-
atures up to 608 C for periods of up to 14 months
862 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868

Table 1
Effects of environmental agents in concrete
Effect Aramid Carbon Glass Influencing parameters
Alkali exposition Strength reduction Strength reduction Strength reduction Resin type,
0–20% 0–20% 0–75% temperature,
tensile stress
Chloride exposition Low sensitivity Resistant Sensible
Moisture Decreasing of fibres Damage of resin Damage of resin Resin type,
mechanical characteristics temperature

evidenced that the creep strain in the 9.5 mm bars was less
than 5% of the initial value after 10,000 h of sustained ten-
sile loading [39]. This value was obtained under high tensile
stress of 38% of the guaranteed tensile strength.
A test method to characterize creep rupture of FRP bars
was proposed by Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE-
E533 [29]), while ACI 440.3R-04 [3] proposed a ‘‘Test
Method for Creep of FRP Bars’’. These test methods are
aimed at evaluating the load-induced tensile strain at
imposed ages for FRP bars under a selected set of con-
trolled environmental conditions and the corresponding
load rate.
CFRP shows excellent behaviour with regard to the
strains due creep. It can be stated that creep strain of
CFRP, at room temperature and humidity, remains under
0.01% after 3000 h at a tensile stress of even 80% of the ten-
sile strength [33,49,68]. AFRP and GFRP give much higher
creep strain than CFRP: 0.15–1.0% for AFRP and 0.3–
1.0% for GFRP at the same conditions above described
[20,33,43].
The relaxation phenomenon of an FRP bar is defined by
the time dependent decrease in load of the bar held at a
given constant temperature with a prescribed initial load
applied and held at a given constant strain [22,34]. Usually
relaxation is defined after 1 million hours. A test method
for long-term relaxation of FRP bars has been suggested
by JSCE (JSCE-E 534 [30]) and by the ACI sub-committee
440 K [4].
Experimental studies have been performed on different
FRP products considering various load durations [5]. Test
results indicate that at increasing the temperature, the
relaxation rate becomes greater and this tendency is stron-
ger for AFRP bars. Relaxation after 1000 h can be esti-
mated as 1.8–2.0% for GFRP tendons, 0.5–1.0% for
CFRP tendons and 5.0–8.0% for AFRP tendons, while
relaxation of GFRP, CFRP and AFRP tendons after 50
years of loading can be estimated as 4.0–14.0%, 2.0–
10.0% and 11.0–25.0%, respectively, depending on the ini-
tial tensile stress [6].
A summary of time-depending phenomena described
above is reported in Table 2.
Fatigue is a degradation of the integrity of a material
caused by repeated applications of a large number of load-
ing cycles that reduce meaningful mechanical properties
such as strength and stiffness. A loss of strength causes a
premature failure of the component, because occurs at a
small fraction of the static strength of material.
Evaluation of fatigue resistance in FRP materials is
complex due to several damage mechanisms at many loca-
tions in the composite element: matrix cracking, fibre
breaking, crack coupling, delamination initiation and
delamination growth [53], so that the FRP components fail
due to a series of interdependent damage events. Unidirec-
tional FRP composites possess high fatigue resistance with
linear behaviour up to failure, while in presence of angle-
plies localized damage mechanisms can occur making
non-linear the stress–strain response [22].
Fatigue resistance of GFRP is usually less than that of
prestressing steel [74,33,34].
The fatigue stress limit is the stress level below which a
material can be stressed cyclically for an infinite number of
times without failure.
Individual glass fibres, such as E-glass and S-glass, are
generally not prone to fatigue failure; individual glass
fibres, however, have demonstrated delayed rupture caused
by the stress corrosion induced by the growth of surface

Table 2
Range of time-depending effects
Phenomenon Aramid (%) Carbon (%) Glass (%) Influencing parameters
Creep strain under sustained load 0.15–1.0 <0.01 0.3–1.0 Temperature, humidity
(i.e. 80% tensile strength after 3000 h)
Creep failure strength 47–66 79–93 29–55 Resin type, volume fraction
after about 50 years and orientation of fibres,
environmental conditions
Relaxation
1000 h 5.0–8.0 0.5–1.0 1.8–2.0 Temperature, initial
tensile stress
50 years 11–25 2.0–10 4.0–14
 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
flaws in the presence of even minute quantities of moisture
in ambient laboratory environment tests [35].
GFRP bars may loose approximately 10% of the initial
static strength per decade of logarithmic lifetime [35] in
presence of cyclic tensile loading. Environmental factors
aging contemporaneously to cyclic load can influence the
fatigue behaviour of GFRP bars due to sensibility of glass
fibres to moisture, alkaline and acidic solutions.
CFRP composites are the least vulnerable to fatigue fail-
ure: the fatigue strength is 3–4 times higher than that of
prestressing steel [68,49,50]. At one million cycles the fati-
gue strength (residual strength after being subjected to fati-
gue) is usually between 50% and 70% of the initial static
strength, and is low dependent on environmental condi-
tions, unless the resin or fibre/resin interface is substan-
tially degraded by the environment. Fatigue of CFRP
seems to be independent of stress level and amplitude [70].
In general fatigue behaviour when FRP rebars are
embedded in concrete is influenced by concrete environ-
mental that results in negative effect reducing fatigue life
(Fig. 4 [45]).
In the case of CFRP bars encased in concrete the fatigue
strength further decreases when the temperature increases
from 20 C to 40 C [1]. Therefore the endurance limit is
inversely proportional to loading frequency and decreases
due to the higher mean stress or a lower stress ratio
(minimum stress/maximum stress) [49].
Aramid fibres, for which substantial durability data are
available, appear to behave similarly to carbon and glass
fibres in fatigue. Neglecting the rather poor durability of
all aramid fibres in compression, the tension–tension fati-
gue behaviour of an impregnated aramid fibre bar is excel-
lent. Strength degradation per decade of logarithmic
lifetime is approximately 5–6% [46]. While no distinct
endurance limit is known for AFRP, but for 2 million
cycles the fatigue strength reported is variable between
54% and 73% of the initial ultimate strength [41]. Both
GFRP and AFRP show similar dependency of stress level
on fatigue strength like prestressing steel does [70].
Fig. 4. Comparison of fatigue behaviour of bare and embedded CFRP
rebars [45].
863
Deformations, ribs or wraps on FRP bar surface can
induce local stress concentrations influencing the perfor-
mance of FRP bars under repeated loading: local stress
concentrations generate multiaxial stresses increasing the
damage mechanisms related to matrix failure degrading
the fatigue performance. Construction modality of the
FRP bar can activate damage mechanisms related to fibres
failure [24].
For FRP rebars used as concrete reinforcement, various
types of fatigue testing, such as tension–tension, tension–
compression, compression–compression, etc., are possible
[61,8,25]. The results indicated that bond strength can
either increase, decrease, or remain the same following cyc-
lic loading that means that bond fatigue behaviour has not
been sufficiently investigated to date. A test method to
determine the fatigue characteristics of FRP bars under
tensile cyclic loading has been adopted by JSCE (JSCE-E
535 [31]) and a similar method has been proposed by
ACI 440k [4], that is surely a basic procedure for evaluating
material characteristics.
3. Influence of concrete–FRP mechanisms
The previous analysis of durability regards FRP rebars
alone or in concrete, but does not exhaust durability of
RC elements reinforced with them.
Deterioration of strength, stiffness and bond at
concrete–FRP interface influences strength and stiffness
reductions of RC members. It is, thus, important to high-
light the influence of the mechanical problems due to inter-
action between concrete and FRP [73].
It is worth noticing that the most types of rebars are
characterized by Young modulus lower then steel one, thus
cracks opening in service conditions are high reducing the
protection role of concrete around rebars.
Surface configurations of rebars can modify the bond
behaviour of FRP rebars; suitable surface geometry and
treatment [72] can reduce crack widths and increase the
splitting forces that usually limits the bond strength, allow-
ing the application of rebar near the surface without risk of
longitudinal cracks.
However the difference between thermal coefficients
(CTE) of concrete and FRP play a very important role
when thermal actions occur. In the longitudinal direction
of FRP rebars the CTE is strongly dependent on fibres
characteristics, but in transversal direction is governed by
resin. In Table 3 typical values of CTE are reported evi-
dencing that in longitudinal direction glass fibres result
Table 3
Coefficient of thermal expansion
Direction Coefficient of thermal expansion (·10 6/C)
Steel GFRP CFRP AFRP
Longitudinal, aL 11.7 6.0 to 10.0 1.0 to 0 2.0 to 6.0
Transverse, aT 11.7 21.0 to 23.0 22.0 to 50.0 60.0 to 80.0
864 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
similar to concrete but in the transversal one the thermal
expansion is much higher for all types of fibres.
Therefore when high temperature variation takes place
the large difference between transversal CTE can lead to
transversal strain much higher than the concrete ones
(Fig. 5), causing radial pressure on the surface of the rein-
forcement with cracking of surrounding concrete and
longitudinal splitting of concrete cover. Therefore the
thickness of concrete cover must be generally increased [2].
Experimental pull out tests on embedded CFRP wires
[32] have investigated the combined effect of high tempera-
ture and concrete cover thickness (10, 20 and 30 mm) on
the bond strength. Bond strength increase with the increase
of concrete cover up to approximately 100 C, above
100 C deterioration of resin matrix is the governing
parameter of failure due to a softening phenomenon, while
at 200 C bond strength does not seem influenced by the
concrete cover.
Requirement of concrete cover thicker than for steel
reinforcement highlights the problem in the case of the
innovative technique of strengthening with near surface
mounting rebars (NSMB), when the FRP rebars are posed
in the cover of the steel ones.
Thermal cycles (also freezing and thawing) can damage
bond at concrete interface reducing stiffness of the element
(increment of deflection) and increasing cracks opening,
Fig. 5. Strains in concrete and rebars due to temperature [19].
because, as well-known bond law defines tension stiffening
phenomenon.
An important effect on the CTE of rebars is the surface
treatment, the effect of spiral wrapping used to improve
bond can be relevant; when transversal dilatation occurs a
confinement effect of the wrapping reduces the transversal
strain and the consequence radial tension on concrete [19].
Also at high temperature and for fire resistance the role
of concrete cover is much more important because it repre-
sents the protection of rebars, in general less fire resistant
than steel.
Tests on beams under high temperature [64] showed the
reduction of stiffness and strength is higher when compos-
ite reinforcement is used instead of steel (Fig. 6); further-
more the result depends on the fibres but also on the type
of rebars [51].
In case of beams fatigue life is related to bond degrada-
tion that for FRPs strongly depends on surface treatment.
In some cases FRP reinforcement can result in less fatigue
degradation [54] than steel, having a bond mechanism gov-
erned by more stiff and resistant ribs that result in higher
damage of interface during cyclic loads. Therefore it is dif-
ficult to evaluate the fatigue strength in concrete because
many surface treatment are available with very different
bond laws (fib bulletin no. 10 [18]).
Long-term effects of RC elements depends on creep
characteristics of reinforcement but also on concrete creep,
therefore in general the beam behaviour is similar to that of
steel reinforced one and deformability increment in case of
FRP reinforcement is not much higher [10]. Moreover it
can be observed that low elastic modulus of FRP gives a
higher stress in compressive concrete at the same percent-
age of reinforcement, enhancing the influence of concrete
creep. Really the creep effects has to be considered together
with shrinkage of concrete, therefore the problem is com-
plex but surely much more influenced by concrete behav-
Fig. 6. Stiffness reduction of beams due to temperature effect [64].
 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
iour than reinforcement one. Finally the creep of FRP-con-
crete bond interface have to be considered, but many type
of surface treatments are available and experimental infor-
mation are lack; considering that FRP bond results in
higher stress level of the reinforcement than concrete, com-
pared to steel bond, in general creep could be lower.
4. Design provisions for durability
The alteration of the materials properties in the time is a
critical topic for designer, that develop their design for an
established service life (usually 50 or 100 years) of the
structure. The existing design codes and guidelines (in
Japan, Canada, USA and Norway) have been developed
to take account of specific environmental and time effects
in a similar way. The philosophy identifies the main time
depending situations and introduces a series of strength
reduction factors to account for potential deterioration of
FRP in these conditions. Furthermore in the provisions
about constructive details the minimum concrete cover
(the concrete thickness covering the rebar) is suggested
considering the protection of FRP rebar, the avoiding of
splitting failure of bond mechanism, and reduction of con-
crete cracking due to the different CTE of concrete and
rebar. Values of concrete cover should be greater than
twice the rebar diameter, db, (ACI 440k [4]) or 1.5–1.8 db
(Canadian Standard Association CAN/CSA-S806-02 [12])
to avoid splitting failure in RC elements, but greater values
are required for prestressed elements. In some codes (CNR
DT [15], fib technical report [17]), values of concrete cover
greater than 25–35 mm are suggested for RC elements and
more for prestressed ones.
In Table 4, mean reduction factors are listed for various
international code and the draft of Italian provisions.
These factors introduce in the design the effect of environ-
mental conditions and permanent sustained loads, that
reduce the rebars performances during the life of the struc-
ture i.e. the durability of the structure.
The design guidelines of British Institution of Structural
Engineers (BISE [9]) propose one factor reducing the mate-
rial strength that takes into account of the effects of envi-
ronment, sustained stress and other general uncertainties
about materials. The JSCE design guidelines (JSCE [28])
provides one factor reducing the material strength and con-
Table 4
Reduction factors
Factor ACI 440 NS 3473 CHBDC
Reduction for CE genv UFRP
environmental GFRP: 0.7–0.8 GFRP: 0.5 GFRP: 0.75
deterioration AFRP: 0.8–0.9 AFRP: 0.9 AFRP: 0.85
CFRP: 0.9–1.0 CFRP: 1.0 CFRP: 0.85
Stress limit for GFRP: 0.20 Not specified F 0.8 of creep failure
permanent load
AFRP: 0.30 GFRP: 0.8–1.0
CFRP: 0.55 AFRP: 0.5–1.0
CFRP: 0.9–1.0
865
sidering several effects including environmental durability,
while specific limitations of stresses are given for perma-
nent loads.
On the other hand, other codes (e.g. Norwegian stan-
dard NS 3473 [40], STF 22A98741 [62], Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code CHBDC [13,14], CNR DT2005 [15],
ACI 440k [4]) suggest specific factors taking into account
the deterioration caused by environmental and long-term
effects. The Norwegian design provisions (NS 3473 [40])
give reduction factors for stress rupture due to long time
load in dry air at room temperature.
The combined effects of environmental deterioration
and sustained loads are considered by reducing the mate-
rial tensile strength using both reduction factors when they
are explicitly indicated by codes (ACI 440k [4], NS 3473
[40], CHBDC [13,14], CNR DT2005 [15]) obtaining very
high reductions (the minimum value is for GFRP accord-
ing to ACI 440k [4] provisions). In the case of British
and Japanese guidelines (BISE [9], JSCE [28]) all the effects
are summarized in the material factor, usually introduced
in addition also in the other codes besides the reduction
factors.
So high reduction of material properties, especially for
glass fibres, in general vanishes the possibility of using high
strength performance of FRP material, furthermore it is
not possible to differentiate the various types of products
available in the market, therefore some researchers con-
sider the approach to much safe and suggest to take into
account the parameters influencing the durability.
Reliability of this procedure is related to experimental
standard methods to test durability of FRP rebars. ASTM
standard are available for matrix and FRP material (water,
humidity, corrosion effects) in general but not for bars.
About long-term behaviour, the Canadian code (Canadian
Standard Association CAN/CSA-S806-02 [12]) suggests
testing procedures for long-term relaxation, creep and ten-
sile fatigue of FRP Rods; therefore specific testing proce-
dures are furnished to evaluate alkali resistance and bond
strength of FRP sheet bonded to concrete.
However standard procedures are still lack for concrete
elements reinforced with FRP rebars, where also mechani-
cal interaction occurs through bond. More studies need in
this field to better understand the effective durability of RC
elements and not of FRP material.
JSCE BISE CNR
1/cfm 1/cm ga
GFRP: 0.77 GFRP: 0.3 GFRP: 0.7–0.8
AFRP: 0.87 AFRP: 0.5 AFRP: 0.8–0.9
CFRP: 0.87 CFRP: 0.6 CFRP: 0.9–1.0
Not specified gl
strength
GFRP 6 0.7 GFRP: 0.3
AFRP 6 0.7 AFRP: 0.5
CFRP 6 0.7 CFRP: 0.9
866 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
5. Conclusive remarks and research needs
Many aspects influence durability of RC elements with
FRP rebars depending on reinforcement characteristics
and their interaction with concrete. The complexity is due
to the variety of products available in the market in terms
of constituents (resins and fibres) and surface treatment.
The weakness of FRPs to environmental agents (water,
alkali, salt solution) or conditions (temperature) is related
to penetration or degradation of resin, that protect fibres
and allow their collaboration by bond.
Fibres possess several adequate mechanical properties to
be used suitably in various structural applications.
The ‘‘endurance limit’’, i.e. the reduction of tensile
strength under sustained load, which may be as high as
50%, is a long-term effect of fibres.
Creep, relaxation and fatigue in RC elements cause
effects less relevant than steel reinforcement.
The most important FRP-concrete mechanisms are due
to bond and thermal actions, that govern cracking behav-
iour and in consequence the strength and stiffness of the
elements.
In particular, the transversal coefficient of thermal
expansion is 5–8 times the concrete one, inducing high ten-
sile radial stresses or reducing bond efficiency. As a conse-
quence, minimum values of concrete cover need to be
adopted to prevent splitting failure. The design approach
for durability, as implemented in international codes, con-
sists into strength reduction factors to accommodate dura-
bility problems and long-term effects. These factors tend to
reduce significantly the performances of rebars. However,
an alternative approach requires more specific information
of the particular product and standard experimental proce-
dures to estimate the properties having a role in durability.
Nowadays the knowledge and continuous evolution of
the market does not allow to change the code approach
saving simplicity of design method.
Further experimental tests occur to identify the proper-
ties of FRP rebars affecting the durability of RC elements,
thus leading with an unified approach to allow a general-
ization for wide categories of rebars. It is also essential to
develop procedures for standard tests with accelerated
methods to well-assess the experimental data of different
researchers and to require that manufacturers may classify
the products also in terms of durability.
The more detailed and generalized information may lead
to an improvement of the existing design methods decreas-
ing the values of reduction factors and enhancing the
design values of properties.
Finally, provisions for details influencing durability
especially through cracking of concrete, as concrete cover
and crack width limits, are required.
References
[1] Adimi R, Rahman H, Benmokrane B, Kobayashi K. Effect of
temperature and loading frequency on the fatigue life of a CFRP bar
in concrete. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on
composites in infrastructure (ICCI-98), Tucson, Ariz., vol. 2, 1998. p.
203–10.
[2] Aiello MA, Focacci F, Huang PC, Nanni A. Cracking of concrete
cover in fibre reinforced polymer reinforced concrete under thermal
loads. In: Fourth international symposium on FRP reinforcement for
reinforced concrete structures, Michigan, 1999. p. 233–43.
[3] American Concrete Institute. Guide test methods for fibre-reinforced
polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or strengthening concrete structures.
ACI Report 440.3R-04, Farmington Hills, 2004.
[4] American Concrete Institute. Guide for the design and construction
of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI Report 440.1R-0103,
Farmington Hills, 2004.
[5] Ando N, Matsukawa H, Hattori A, Mashima M. Experimental
studies on the long-term tensile properties of FRP tendons. In: Proc
of 3rd int. symp. FRPRCS-3, JCI, vol. 2, 1997. p. 203–10.
[6] Balazs GL, Borosnyoi A. Long-term behaviour of FRP. In: Cosenza
E, Manfredi G, Nanni A, editors, Proceedings of the international
workshop ‘‘Composites in construction: a reality’’. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, 2001. p. 84–91.
[7] Bank LC, Gentry TR. Accelerated test methods to determine the
long-term behaviour of FRP composite structures: environmental
effects. J Reinf Plast Compos 1995;14:558–87.
[8] Bakis CE, Al-Dulaijan SU, Nanni A, Boothby TE, Al-Zahrani MM.
Effect of cyclic loading on bond behavior of GFRP rods embedded in
concrete beams. J Compos Technol Res 1998;20(1):29–37.
[9] BISE, British Institution of Structural Engineers. Interim guidance on
the design of reinforced structures using fibre composite reinforce-
ment, Seto Ltd, August 1999.
[10] Brown V, Bartholomew C. Long-term deflections of GFRP-rein-
forced concrete beams. In: First international conference on com-
posites in infra-structure, Tucson, Arizona, USA, 1996. p. 389–400.
[11] Budelman H, Rostasy FS. Creep rupture behaviour of FRP elements
for prestressed concrete-phenomenon, results and forecast models.
Proceedings of ACI international symposium on FRP reinforcement
for concrete structures. Vancouver; 1993. p. 87–100.
[12] Canadian Standards Association, CAN/CSA-S806-02. Design and
construction of building components with fibre reinforced polymers.
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, 2002.
[13] Canadian Standards Association, CAN/CSA-S6-00. CHBDC, Cana-
dian highway bridge design code. CSA International, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada, 2000.
[14] Canadian Standards Association, Addendum to Section 16, CAN/
CSA-S6-00. Canadian highway bridge design code, CSA Interna-
tional, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada (R2005), 2000.
[15] CNR DT 2005. Istruzioni per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il
Controllo di Strutture realizzate con Calcestruzzo armato mediante
Barre di Materiale Composito Fibrorinforzato [draft in italian].
[16] Devalapura RK, Greenwood ME, Gauchel JV, Humphrey TJ. In: El-
Badry MM, editor. Advanced composite materials in bridges and
structures. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Society for Civil Engineer-
ing; 1996. p. 107–16.
[17] Fib Technical Report. FRP reinforcement for RC structures –
technical report on the design and use of fibre reinforced polymer
reinforcement (FRP) for reinforced concrete structures, Task Group
9.3 FRP (fibre reinforced polymer) reinforcement for concrete
structures, July 2005 [draft].
[18] Fib Bulletin No. 10 – Bond of reinforcement in concrete – State-of-art
Report, 2000, ISBN 2-88394-050-9.
[19] Gentry T, Hudak C. Thermal compatibility of plastic composite
reinforcement and concrete. In: Proc of second international confer-
ence on advanced composite materials in bridges and structures,
Montreal, Quebec, 1996. p. 149–56.
[20] Gerritse A. Aramid-based prestressing tendons. In: Clarke, editor.
Alternative materials for the reinforcement and prestressing of
concrete. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993. p. 172–99.
[21] Hayes MD, Garcia K, Verghese N, Lesko JJ. The effects of moisture
on the fatigue behavior of a glass/vinyl ester composite. In: Proc of
 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
2nd intl conf on fibre composites in infrastructure, ICCI’98, vol. 1,
1998. p. 1–13.
[22] Hollaway L. Polymer composites for civil and structural engineer-
ing. Glasgow: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1993.
[23] Kato Y, Yamaguchi T, Nishimura T, Uomoto T. Computational
model for deterioration of aramid fibre by ultraviolet rays. In: Proc of
3rd intl symposium on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete
structures, vol. 2, 1997. p. 163–70.
[24] Katz A. Effect of helical wrapping on fatigue resistance of GFRP.
J Compos Constr 1998;2(3):121–5.
[25] Katz A. Bond to concrete of FRP rebars after cyclic loading.
J Compos Constr 2000;4(3):137–44.
[26] Karbhari VM. Durability of FRP composites for civil infrastructure
myth, mystery or reality. Adv Struct Eng 2003;6(3):243–56.
[27] Yamaguchi T, Kato Y, Nishimura T, Uomoto T. Creep rupture of
FRP rods. In: Proc 3rd int symposium FRPRCS-3, JCI, vol. 2, 1997.
p. 179–86.
[28] Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). Recommendations for
design and construction of concrete structures using continuous fibre
reinforced materials. JSCE, Tokyo, Japan, 1997.
[29] JSCE-E 533. Test method for creep failure of continuous fibre
reinforcing materials. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo,
Japan, 1995.
[30] JSCE-E 534. Test method for long-term relaxation of continuous
fibre reinforcing materials. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo,
Japan, 1995.
[31] JSCE-E 535. Test method for tensile fatigue of continuous fibre
reinforcing materials. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo,
Japan, 1995.
[32] Lubloy E, Balazs GL, Borosnyoi A, Nehme SG. Bond of CFRP wires
under elevated temperature. In: Proc of the int symposium on bond
behaviour of FRP in structure, Hong Kong, China, 2005. p.163–67.
[33] Machida A. State-of-the-Art Report on Continuous Fibre Reinforc-
ing Materials. In: JSCE, Tokyo, Japan, 1993.
[34] Machida A. Recommendation for design and construction of
concrete structures using continuous fibre reinforcing materials.
Concrete engineering series, vol. 23. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society
of Civil Engineers; 1997.
[35] Mandell JF. Fatigue behavior of fibre–resin composites. Develop-
ments in reinforced plastics, vol. 2. London: Applied Science Pub-
lishers; 1982. p. 67–107.
[36] Micelli F, Nanni A. Durability of FRP rods for concrete structures.
Constr Build Mater, 18. Elsevier; 2004. p. 491–503.
[37] Mufti A, Onofrei M, Benmokrane B, Banthia N, Boulfiza M,
Newhook J, et al. Studies of concrete reinforced with GFRP
specimens from field demonstration structures. In: Hamelin P, et al.
editor. 3rd International conference on composites in construction,
Lyon, France, 11–13 July 2005.
[38] Nkurunziza G, Debaiky A, Cousin P, Benmokrane B. Durability of
GFRP bars: a critical review of the literature. Prog struct engng
materials, vol. 7. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005. p. 194–209.
[39] Nkurunziza G, Benmokrane B, Debaiky AS, Masmoudi R. Effect of
creep and environment on long-term tensile properties of glass FRP
reinforcing bars. In: 4th international conference on advanced
composite materials in bridges and structures, Calgary, Alberta,
2004 [on CD-Rom].
[40] Norwegian Standard NS 3473. Prosjektering av betongkonstruksj-
oner -Beregnings- og konstruksjonsregler, 1998.
[41] Odagiri T, Matsumoto K, Nakai H. Fatigue and relaxation charac-
teristics of continuous aramid fibre reinforced plastic rods. In:
Proceedings of the third international symposium on non-metallic
(FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures (FRPRCS-3) Sapporo,
Japan, vol. 2, 1997. p. 227–34.
[42] Pecce M, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Experimental response and code
models of GFRP r.c. beams in bending. ASCE J Compos Constr
2000;4(4):182–90.
[43] Piggott MR. Load bearing fibre composites. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1980.
867
[44] Porter ML, Barnes BA. Accelerated aging degradation of glass fibre
composites. In: Saadatmanesh H, Eshani MR, editors. Proc of 2nd
international conference on composites in infrastructure, vol. 2,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1998. p. 446–59.
[45] Rahman A, Adimi MR, Benmokrane B. Fatigue behaviour of FRP
reinforcements encased in concrete. In: Proc of 2nd international
conference on advanced composite material in bridges and structures,
Montreal, Quebec, 1996. p. 691–98.
[46] Roylance M, Roylance O. Effect of moisture on the fatigue resistance
of an aramid-epoxy composite. Organic coatings and plastics chem-
istry, vol. 45. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society; 1981. p.
784–8.
[47] Rostásy F. On durability of FRP in aggressive environment. In: Proc
of 3rd int symposium, FRPRCS-3, JCI, vol. 2, 1997. p. 107–14.
[48] Saadatmanesh H, Tannous FE. Durability of FRP rebars and
tendons. In: Proc of 3rd int symposium, FRPRCS-3, JCI, vol. 2, 1997.
p. 147–54.
[49] Saadatmanesh H, Tannous FE. Relaxation, creep and fatigue
behavior of carbon fibre reinforced plastic tendons. ACI Mater
J 1999;96(2):143–53.
[50] Saadatmanesh H, Tannous FE. Long-term behavior of aramid fibre
reinforced plastic (AFRP) tendons. ACI Mater J 1999;96(3):297–305.
[51] Sakashita M, Masuda Y, Nakamura K, Tanano H, Nishida I,
Hashimoto T. Deflection of continuous fibre reinforced concrete
beams subjected to loaded heating. In: Proc of 3rd international
symposium on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete struc-
tures, Sapporo, Japan, vol. 2, 1997. p. 51–8.
[52] Sasaki I, Nishizaki I, Sakamoto H, Katawaki K, Kawamoto Y.
Durability evaluation of FRP cables by exposure tests. In: Proc of 3rd
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures FRPRCS-3,
vol. 2. Japan Concrete Institute, Tokyo, 1997. p. 131–37.
[53] Schaff JR. Fatigue, life prediction. ASM handbook vol. 21 compos-
ites. Material Park, Ohio: ASM International; 2001. p. 252–8.
[54] Shield C, French C, Retika A. Thermal and mechanical fatigue effects
on GFRP rebar–concrete bond. In: Third international symposium
on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, Sap-
poro, Japan, vol. 2, 1997. p. 381–88.
[55] Seki H, Sekijima K, Konno T. Test method on creep of continuous
fibre reinforcing materials. In: Proc of the third international
symposium on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete struc-
tures (FRPRCS-3) Sapporo, Japan, vol. 2, 1997. p. 195–202.
[56] Sen R, Shahawy M, Sukumar S, Rosas J. Effects of tidal exposure on
bond of CFRP rods. In: Proc of 2nd intl conf on fibre composites in
infrastructure ICCI’98, vol. 2, Tucson, 1998. p. 512–23.
[57] Sen R, Mariscal D, Shahawy M. Durability of fibreglass pretensioned
beams. ACI Struct J 1993;90(5):525–33.
[58] Sen R, Shahawy M, Rosas J, Sukumar S. Durability of aramid
pretensioned elements in a marine environment. ACI Struct J
1998;95(5):578–87.
[59] Sen R, Shahawy M, Rosas J, Sukumar S. Durability of carbon
pretensioned elements in a marine environment. ACI Struct J
1998;95(6):716–24.
[60] Steckel GL, Hawkins GF, Bauer JL. Environmental durability of
composites for seismic retrofit of bridge columns. In: Proc of 2nd intl
conf on fibre composites in infrastructure ICCI’98, vol. 2, Tucson,
1998. p. 460–75.
[61] Sippel TM, Mayer U. Bond behavior of FRP strands under short-
term, reversed and cyclic loading. In: El-Badry MM, editor. Proc of
the 2nd international conference on advanced composite materials in
bridges and structures (ACMBS-2). Montreal, Quebec: Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering; 1998. p. 837–44.
[62] STF 22A98741 Report. Eurocrete Modifications to NS3473 When
Using FRP Reinforcement, Norway, 1998.
[63] Takewaka K, Khin M. Deterioration of stress-rupture of FRP rods in
alkaline solution simulating as concrete environment. In: El-Badry
MM, editor. Advanced composite materials in bridges and struc-
tures. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Society for Civil Engineering;
1996. p. 649–64.
868 F. Ceroni et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 857–868
[64] Tanano H, Masuda Y, Kage T, Fukuyama H. Fire resistance of
contours fibre reinforced concrete. In: Taerwe L, editor. Proc of non-
metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, RILEM Pro-
ceedings 29, London, England, 1995. p. 368–75.
[65] Tanano H, Masuda Y, Sakashita M, Oono Y, Nonomura K, Satake
K. Tensile properties at high temperatures of continuous fibre bars
and deflections of continuous fibre reinforced concrete beams under
high-temperature loading. In: Proc of 3rd international symposium
on non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, Sap-
poro, Japan, vol. 2, 1997, p. 43–50.
[66] Tannous FE, Saadatmanesh H. Environmental effects on the
mechanical properties of E-glass FRP rebars. ACI Mater J
1998;95(2):87–100.
[67] Tomosawa F, Nakatsuji T. Evaluation of ACM reinforcement
durability by exposure test. In: Proc of 3rd intl symposium on
non-metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, vol. 2,
1997. p. 3–50.
[68] Tokyo Rope. Technical Data on CFCC. Tokyo Rope Mfg. Co.,
Ltd. Manual, Tokyo, October 1993.
[69] Uomoto T. Development of new GFRP with high alkali resistivity.
In: Proc of 4th international conference on advanced composite
materials in bridges and structures ACMBS-IV, Calgary, Alberta,
2004 [on CD-Rom].
[70] Uomoto T, Nishimura T, Ohga H. Static and fatigue strength of FRP
rods for concrete reinforcement. Proc of 2nd int symposium on non-
metallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, FRPRCS-
2. London: E & FN Spon; 1995. p. 100–7.
[71] Uomoto T, Nishimura T. Deterioration of aramid, glass and carbon
fibres due to alkali, acid and water in different temperatures. In: Proc
of 4th int symposium, FRPRCS-4, ACI SP-188. American Concrete
Institute, 1999. p. 515–22.
[72] Uomoto T. Durability of FRP as reinforcement for concrete
structures. In: Humar JL, Razaqpur AG, editors. Proc of the 3rd
international conference on advanced composite materials in bridges
and structures, ACMBS-3. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering; 2000. p. 3–17.
[73] Weber A. Bond properties of a newly developed composite rebars. In:
Proc of the int symposium on bond behaviour of FRP in structure,
Hong Kong, China, 2005. p. 387–92.
[74] Wolff R, Miesseler HJ. Glass–fibre prestressing system. In: Clarke,
editor. Alternative materials for the reinforcement and prestressing of
concrete. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993. p. 127–52.